Dismissed

Samsuddin Ansari v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC18 Sept 2012CR. MISC./553/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Finding that the FIR prima facie made out a case against the petitioner-in-law for demanding dowry and assaulting the wife, the High Court rejected the application, noting previous settlement attempts failed.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing the First Information Report dismissed.

Samsuddin Ansari Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.553 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== Samsuddin Ansari, son of late Maniruddin Ansari, resident of VillagePawapur, P.S. Singhdih, P.S. Topchachi, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Baby Khusubu Ansari, wife of Mohammad Soaib Alam, D/O Abdul Kayum Ansari, resident of Village- Nuranganj, Sasaram Muffasil, P.S. Sasaram Muffasil, District—Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, : Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay, Advocate. For the Opposite Party no.2: Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Mr. Priya Gupta, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶3

7 18-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶4

This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Sasarm (M) P.S Case No. 425 of 2010 registered under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

From the First Information Report it appears that opposite party no.2 was married to Md. Soaib Alam, son of the petitioner on 17.5.2009. It has been alleged that at the time of negotiation of marriage the petitioner including all family members had raised demand for a Car and for cash

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.553 of 2011 (7) dt.18-09-2012

¶7

¶8

of rupees five lakhs. At the time of marriage it has been alleged that her father had given a substantial amount of money as well as other gifts. After the marriage she went to in-laws place at Dhanbad. It has been alleged that she returned back to her parent’s house after staying there for two days. After some time her father had received a telephonic call of the petitioner, raised the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing of Car otherwise this opposite party would not be brought back to her in-laws place. The father of informant had shown inability to pay the same.

¶9

One fine morning on 9.4.2010 the husband of opposite party no.2 came at Sasaram took her back to her Sasural at Pawapur, Topchachi where she was brutally assaulted by her husband and asked her to call her father to pay Rs.5,00,000/- within one year. It has been further alleged that petitioner had exhorted his son for assaulting opposite party no.2 and further allegation has been made that mother-in-law, sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 had also exhorted to torture her. All accused persons kept prosecutrics confined in a room without food and water. On receipt of the information of torture her parents came to Pawapur, Topchachi on 15.4.2010, requested the petitioner

¶10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.553 of 2011 (7) dt.18-09-2012

¶11

¶12

and his family members to stop torture on her but in reply petitioner and other accused persons demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Parents of opposite party no.2, looking no way out, took her to Sasaram. Opposite party no.2 filed a written complaint to the Officer In-charge Town police station Sasaram which resulted as Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No.425 of 2010 for offences under section 498A of the Indian Code and sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶13

At this stage it is relevant to state that this Court has tried its best to settle the dispute and for that parties were called physically in Chamber but this Court completely failed in that process.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is father-in-law of prosecutrics and he is not supposed to raise such a heavy demand of dowry from opposite party no.2. So much so he has placed reliance on paragraph 9 of this petition in which it has been stated that he was a main witness in Shashi Nath Jha’s murder case and on his deposition the Ex-Chief Minister of Jharkhand, namely, Shibu Soren has been convicted for imprisonment of life by the trial court. He has further submitted that as he was allured and was offered cash in that case but he had

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.553 of 2011 (7) dt.18-09-2012

¶16

¶17

remained unmoved, stick to his conviction and as such he is not supposed to make any demand for dowry from opposite party no.2. He has further submitted that before filing of this case, a case for restitution of conjugal right has also been filed by the husband of opposite party no.2, as has been accepted, the case has been dismissed for default. He has further submitted that a parallel proceeding is also pending before Emarate Sharia, Phulwarisharif under the Muslim Law through a case filed on 12.7.2010 seeking an ex-parte order for dissolution of marriage.

¶18

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the case for restitution of conjugal right has been dismissed for default. So far case before Emarate Sharia, Phulwarisharif, has nothing to do with present case as this Court has already made efforts for reconciliation but this Court has failed. So much so, proceeding of Emarate Sharia is also not a legal proceeding under the statute for any law and as such that can not be a ground for quashing the First Information Repot.

¶19

Having considered the rival contentions of learned

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.553 of 2011 (7) dt.18-09-2012

¶21

¶22

counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that from the First Information Report prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. This Court at this stage will not test the veracity of statement made in the First Information Report. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court time without number has held, if from the First Information Report no case is made out against the accused only in that circumstance the court can interfere or to quash the order of cognizance or quash the First Information Report. But from the narration of the fact mentioned in the First Information Report it shows that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and this Court does not find any merit in this application.

¶23

Accordingly this application is dismissed.

¶24

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶25

Vinay/-

Samsuddin Ansari v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samsuddin Ansari v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manti Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gulshan Khatoon and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Umesh Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Govind Jha Vs the State of Bihar

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Faruque Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.